From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-309118-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 13666 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2010 22:03:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 13634 invoked by uid 48); 18 Feb 2010 22:03:05 -0000
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:03:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20100218220305.13633.qmail@sourceware.org>
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
References: <bug-22200-2544@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/22200] numeric_limits<signed>::is_modulo is inconsistent with gcc
In-Reply-To: <bug-22200-2544@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
From: "paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-02/txt/msg01870.txt.bz2



------- Comment #24 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com  2010-02-18 22:03 -------
Richard, can you comment on this issue? Do you think it's currently correct to
have numeric_limits<>:is_modulo == true for all our signed integral types? We
are not making any progress on this issue :(


-- 

paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22200